Leaderboard

Yeah, I mean the video and this post is it in a nutshell. I've been in DCS for like 6-7 years at this point, and in the past bought almost all the modules. But this year, its 1/however many. I no longer have any faith that DCS is gonna get fixed in any reasonable amount of time. And each year that drags on with major Core game problems further reinforces that point. Hence I've stopped buying stuff for now. Realistically the problem can be broken down into 2 categories, Core game issues and the module issues. And until most of this is addressed I'm not really buying anything new, there is basically no point. CORE: Clouds/weather: At this point the core game stuff is pretty unforgivable. Like we don't have weather system anyone can actually use because clouds don't block LOS for the AI or IR missiles. That is major fail and its been this way for IDK, 4 years or something absurd like that. And weather has major impacts on air ops, be in WW2 (love getting sniped by 88's thru clouds) or modern. Ground unit AI: The main thing here is just how units react to air attack, like no tank commander is gonna sit in an empty field with enemy air/helos around, he's gonna find cover. Nor will that commander be taking pot shots at passing fast jets, he's gonna hope they don't see him or have something more important to do. AI of this sort is not hard to implement. Also some sort of mission/kill/morale kill for units would be great. Also, giving us more relevant target types than "tonk", probably the worst thing DCS is guilty of is that the A-10 module came first and the focus was bombing tanks-n-toyotas. Whereas in an actual modern air war, you are hitting depots/bridges/C3I etc etc. Yes there can be some CAS, but the focus in DCS is waay too CAS centric. (I also realize that this is partly a mission designer problem). Air-unit-AI Its been improved lately but still pretty bad. Especially wingmen. Post above covers some of it. SAM/IADS This is a huge topic, but at a minimum fix the AI SAM guidance behaviors on a basic level so I can't abuse the existing guidance behavior which is wrong (i.e. always flying lead pursuit, so I can easily fly SAMs into the ground). There is nothing sekrit about this, documents are out there starting from the SA-2 and up through the early double digit sams. I am playing a air-combat game and a big part of that is dealing with SAMs/IADS, and IADS doesn't exist at all in DCS. Also it would be nice to have more actual relevant sams for cold war which would be pretty easy to do as the 3D models can be recycled i.e. early Chapperal, add early manpads Sa-7/redeye/Sa14 etc (who cares if you use the igla model, no one can tell from 5k feet). The CORE game is about Air-to-Air combat and Air to ground combat. FOCUS on fixing how that works. Modules: Frankly I have far fewer issues with the actual modules in DCS but there some serious general problems that need to be addressed. Coherency The biggest general problem is the slapdash plane sets. 0 coherency. WW2 is great example, you have some 1944 allied planes, a 1944 map or two, and then 1945 German unicorn planes (109K? why not a G-6?). Like who the hell thought that was a good idea? And then there is the I-16, like why? I predict that DCS pacific war will be an absolute disaster for the same reason. We have what the F4U (coming 20nevernever) by the look of it, and a hellcat... Well where is the Opfor? Back in the Day when BST was around you at least got "matched" sets of planes which was a really good idea, and I wonder whatever happened to that. Yes, Mig15 vs F86, smart... Modeling standards and parity. For DCS to be good, you have to model things to roughly the same standard across modules. I realize that this is hard and requires work, but its the only reasonable way to do things, especially for MP. Currently there are huge disparities between modules radars and how thats modeled for each jet and this leads to abuse and "gamey" tactics. The F15E radar is basically the gold standard for how modern radars should be modeled. And frankly no ED module is even close to that level of fidelity which is tragic. But its also a problem for older modules, i.e. the F5E or the Mig21 radars by 2024 standards are really poorly modeled. Frankly there needs to be a 2-3 year update cycle for older modules that brings them up to modern standards if ED expects to keep selling them. I realize its work, but probably the biggest draw to DCS is the large planeset, especially for MP. SENSORS The other major elephant in the room is sensor modeling. This means radars/RWRs/TGP's/DL's etc. Modern air combat is 100% about these sorts of systems and in general with the exception of the F15E radar and the older F4 radar, sensors in most DCS modules are really poorly done. Frankly its my opinion ED should get out of the modern jet business and focus on WW2 or Korea/VN era because its pretty clear that modern sensors are not a thing ED knows how to do. I realize you guys are "working on it" and its complex, thus far I have 0 faith that it will be done well at all. This is triply true of things like TGP's which at this point are symbiology simulators, none of the major IR pain points are modeled in DCS at all, no Diurnal crossover, no real difference between IR images for day/night, no signal attenuation due to range, ED is using a LWIR (I assume) model developed for the Apache (LWIR sensor), for all the modern jet TGP's which are MWIR with the exception of lantirn. Modern air combat is ALL about the sensors, and DCS fails pretty hard for the most part here (F15E/F4 exempted). The one saving grace I suppose is that the audience/community doesn't actually have any clue how any of it supposed to work or look. Parting shot on maps: A big problem with the various maps is that they make very little sense. And IDK why ED commissions some maps. The reason Cauc and Syria are popular are because they are interesting and relevant places to fly, plus cauc is free. But terrain/geography in a relevant place is crucial. Caucus has mountains which make for interesting gameplay. Syria, well also does in various decent spots along with a good airfield layout, plus to Ugra's credit they are constantly improving it and upgrading it, I can't really say the same for any other map (normandy I suppose gets some updates). South Atlantic: Fails because no relevant units to do the falklands air war. And while I like the map, the SA part of it, there are no good ways to setup a MP sever with em. Sinai: Fails, its a modern map for a war last fought in 1973. Literally the Dev should bust out the delete tool and look at historical sat imagery and get to deleting. I guess we now have modern conflict there, but its basically JDAM vs toyota at best, which isn't interesting at all. I regret buying it. Kola: this may end up being good someday when its done, but the actual fought over part of the map (Rus/finn border) is basically flat. Afghanistan: A map for bombing toyotas... like I don't get the appeal, nor did I buy it. Iraq map: The decision to not have Iranian airbases is mind boggling, literally one of the biggest/longest air war of the 20th century was the iran/iraq war. And DCS at this point at least has enough of the plane set to actually do it right. F4E/F5E/F14 vs Mig21/(well we woulda had a mig23 who knows now)/mig29. Instead ED inexplicably thinks bombing Toyotas is what people want... Yup fair point. ED has at least somewhat fixed the performance issues and VR is now pretty playable. As for the 29 I'm bracing myself to be dissapointed. I doubt ED will get the radar or EO/IR systems right. And if the sensors are gonna be FC3 level, well I already own that jet.

I can only recommend a fresh reinstall of the mod. Make sure the game is closed when copying the files. Also, you only need the main 1.5.1 download, not the patch, that's for those who had downloaded 1.5.0

Not demands. Constructive CRITICISM. DCS don't need a defender. Everyone knows what it does good, but it also has a lot of important problems to solve. Wysłane z mojego VOG-L29 przy użyciu Tapatalka

This is an excuse more fitting for a college freshman upset that they got a C on their exam. Ultimately, as a customer, I don't care that you worked really hard. I worked hard for my paycheck too. Its currently really difficult to justify buying a DCS module over a polished game for the same price. I want DCS to be good, but I think you don't do your employer any service by doubling down on how we're the ones who are wrong for wanting AAA quality from a AAA MSRP.

We believe the price is fair for the work being put into them, we also offer a heavy discount for pre-orders, and early access, as well as running many sales throughout the year. thank you

Maybe if ED didn't charge AAA prices for modules players wouldn't have AAA expectations. When the full price of an aircraft is $60-80, even if it's 5+ years old, I should expect it to be as polished as any other game in that price range. This also applies to the cost of a map DLC, where I could spend the same amount of money on a complete game.

I watched the video and I mostly agree with the sentiment there. I wish there were more things finished. And I don't mean Afghanistan vs Iraq teams. A map delayed a month or two, whatever. I mean the modules that are in limbo for a long time that calling them abandonware is closer to reality than not, e.g. Yak-52. Just because it still works it is technically probably not an abandonware. In every other aspect, it is. NS430 propagating "radio" on its shop page. And most annoying are all those bugs that slowly accumulate in older modules, reported - and that's it. Minimal priority. I'd rather have ATC working a bit better, but because there is some new ATC on the horizon (I don't believe it will land in two years anyway), ATC is totally ignored in the Caucasus. This also breaks older missions for older modules. I believe older modules do deserve more than just being kept "bootable". They should work. I don't ask for improvements. Just for bug fixes. Instead, we get that Voice chat where SRS worked fine. Sure, great idea, hopefully will be feature complete and bug-free eventually. Starting new projects have ever more priority than fixing bugs. That can only end with way too many bugs in way too many modules.

I hope we can share GFM news, I have asked the team for an update.

I started flying DCS more than 5 years ago. I'm a long time customer and i have bought almost every ED module as well as many 3rd party developer modules. I share the same frustration as many of the people in this thread. What bothers me is both the strategic thinking (or lack of) by ED and also the operational aspect of developing this game. 1. I dont speak for everyone, but me and many people (that i know) wouldn't be much bothered by the slow progress time in the development of early access products if you guys kept them bug free. It is really annoying having to deal with a different radar bug in the F/A-18 or the F-16 every semester !! Well, now the F/A-18 is out of early access but the radar is broken in many aspects. For sure you could say that it is still possible to use it, yeah, but the current bugs reduces its mission effectiveness to the point that it can get you killed (got me killed, and you can't say that it is a skill issue or that i am a bad pilot, modesty aside) and that makes it a very frustrating experience. "But we are improving the radar" cool i appreciate it, i sure do, but please, while you develop a new / refactored radar, keep the current one bug free. Last year the F/A-18 radar couldn't guide a sparrow on a cold target for 6+ months!!! And it was reported on the forums for at least 5 months before it was fixed. Why? is the radar too complex and you don't have the manpower to handle it? if that is the case, i would rather have a simplified fc3 radar in my F/A-18 than have something complex but full of bugs. However, it is hard to not compare this to the F-15E Strike Eagle developed by RAZBAM. They have one of, if not the most realistc modern pulse-doppler radar simulation ever created in DCS, decades ahead of ED model and even tho it is not supported right now due to recent events, it is working like a charm. So, why can't ED provide the same quality and stability to its products ? I wanted to buy the Afghanisthan map, but after trialing it and seeing all of the problems already listed on this thread i decided to wait, iraq was the map that i most expected but i wont purchase that either if the situation don't improve in the near future. 2. You have a lack of vision on selling modules. You guys have stated many times that you need to pump early acces modules to keep the cashflow. Why do you start selling the most modern / versatile version of an aircraft at first if you can't deliver all the features on release? Let's take the F-16 for example. You could have developed an F-16A as a start (simpler than a modern F-16, less systems), or if you wanted to start with something more modern, an F-16C block 30, without HMD, without HTS, just a radar, datalink and tgp (free of bugs) and charge full price for it. Then you could further develop all of its subsystems and start working on the F-16C Block 50. Then 1.5 ~ 2 years later you announce the F-16C Block 50 with all the fancy toys (hmd, hts, sniper and more weapons, FM wouldn't be a problem since blk50 is basically a heavier blk30) and charge a fee for those that owns the blk30 purchase the blk50 version and full price for those that dont have any version. I would pay for it, no problem, many would too as many people would love to see more version of current fighters and by doing that the extra cash would serve as an incentive to actually finish the work on the module. You could have done the same thing with the F/A-18, sell the F/A-18A with the weaker engines, no hmd, no DL, then offer an upgraded version - F/A-18C lot 20 with all the fancy toys. You did a similar thing with the Ka-50 and the A10C. 3. Digital COMBAT Simulator needs to improve its COMBAT simulation. Especially sensors and A.I tactics. Currently ED radars are not modelled up to 2024 standards. Razbam F-15E, M-2000C and Heatblur F-4E are in the game to show that ED is far behind in the simulation of radars. Even the snail game (thunder game) that is not supposed to be a simulator has a better overall radar simulation -- and free of bugs -- when compared to what ED is offering us. The snail game is decades ahead in the simulation of IR missiles, IR in general, FLIR and countermeasures (both flare and chaff). DCS doesn't model the IRCCM mechanisms of the missiles, the interaction of flares with misiles, although it consider some important variables, still relies on dice roll to give results, and dcs doesn't take into account: flare caliber, flare temperature, flare luminosity, flare wavelenght, also IR missiles don't consider flares as a heat source in DCS, IR missiles can see through clouds... meanwhile, the neighbor has all that and a little more... Countermeasures, chaff doesn't show up in the radar of ED modules and the interaction of chaff with missiles in dcs leaves a lot to be desired. AI tactics: in that single plane game from the 90s, the AI is able to perform interesting BVR tactics when flying individually or in a group. They fly in formations like Box, Champagne, Vic, they have combat flows like grinders and they can maintain mutual support. When defending a missile, they go cold and do the snake maneuver and keep high speed. In DCS the A.I is basically replicating growling sidewinder moves which for the A.I is super innefective (especially when flying in a group) and unrealistic. No tactics employed, just air quake tactics (that dont work for a.i). In DCS while flying in a group the A.I doesn't employ any of the basic tactics that i listed. Why? I know that we are not supposed to mention or compare DCS to other games in here, and i hope i don't get a warning for this, but it is hard to not compare because in DCS website says that DCS aims to be the most realistic combat flight simulator of the market, so why older games and free games have features that decades ahead compare to what we have? And with this i'm only talking about air-to-air, air, if we mention air-to-ground there are IADS Sam tactics that are basically non existant. Yeah you recently added an option for the SAM to turn off the radar but that is just a minor thing, it is not really an IADS tactic just a self-defense tactic for a specific samsite. Well, i think i have wrote too much for today. The main point of frustration for me here are the bugs. I can wait a little bit for new features (not 5 years), but the long standing bugs are very frustrating! @NineLine @BIGNEWY I hope you guys take this as a constructive feedack to Eagle Dynamics. I've made some comparisons, but not in a disrespectful way. I care for your product that is why i took my time to write all of this.

ED, I think you’re lucky to be getting this sort of constructive criticism and genuine feedback. I also think ‘the team’ should have a little read of it too and be grateful you’re not having to pay for it. We are. Like a lot of others, I’ve spent far too much money on DCS and I’ve invested back into community stuff to support the campaign makers too. Anyone that’s had a dip into the ME realises how much buggering about it must be to get all that done and as mentioned, we’re afraid of what’s gonna be busted after every update. A lot of things need a lot of work. They’re a real leap of faith for some of us those updates. Of course we need em, who knows, sometimes slip-ups happen while coding and they actually fix something but not often. - Alright, lighten up, I’m sort of kidding but I’m seriously still hoping to be able to run this thing in MP with more than a few choppers without it either stuttering like a jibber-jabber or collapsing altogether. One of those updates created that, I’m certain of it. I won’t go on and on, plenty of people make a lot of points in this thread that I agree with. I just think instead of trying to juggle too much, finish something properly. I’d rather wait for something and find it in fully working order when I buy it. You’re taking my money in full and working order aren’t you. I’m not offering early access deals where you may or may not ever see the full price. I don’t ask you to open a thread and beg for the final payment either so I’d be happy if you’d just serve something that’s properly cooked. If EA is working, keep doing it but offer something that’s complete too that works as it should. It can read like a battering at times but people do have valid complaints. So, I do appreciate that when it works, DCS is the dogs clackers despite it all. There’s still plenty of joy to be had in different ways and the whining doesn’t always come from a crappy place. It still flies better for me than anything else which only makes the niggles matter more. A lot of the time you’re missing the point though and just not accepting that certain things are fundamentally important to have working properly. Stuff like the ME is a foundation. Anything built on those dodgy foundations is gonna fall apart at some point. P.S. Thanks and praises for putting that Mossie tail-wheel right in the end .

No, that would be stupid thing to do. It removes the pixelation effect applied when zoomed in because there is some DCS bug with this that causes a picture in picture type bug with clouds and ED haven't fixed that for us yet. So removing it for now is only option.

100% this. Cynicism does not make one profound, it just makes one jaded. We're not watching Rome burn, we're nerds playing video games. With HB and other 3rd parties still openly committed to DCS, it's probably not going anywhere for a time. ED needs to sit down and take a look at its priorities, this is not the end of DCS. We've heard this from numerous voices within the player base, both reasonable and outrage baiting. Better communication beyond hoping that 9L and BN can get points across is paramount. Some things, like the legal happenings between ED and RB, we need to accept we won't be privy to even when it's all said and done. So much of this could be ended if ED were to communicate more effectively things like progress with backend developments and engine updates. Something, anything. New content is great, but supporting existing content better would be ideal. After all, the fact it took them 10 years to address the F-86's gun? Unacceptable. ED can and should do better. But, let's not go dashing for the fainting couch, just yet.

No doubt, you guys are working on their newest video - 2025 and beyond. Just a request - if at all possible (I know it's a little out of the ordinary for normal 'beyond' video's), but I think it would be really nice to have included at the end of the video (or in a separate video/newsletter) - a short update as to where things are currently at with: Plane Directors on the Super Carrier Air Traffic Control Server Multi-Threading Vulkan Implementation Dynamic Campaign Engine Data Transfer Cartridge Weather System (including Thunderstorms please) Save / Load Game State Spherical Earth Module Modules are fantastic to look forward to - but these are a lot of very much sought after functions that in many cases some users are probably just as eager (if not more) to have some hints, previews of, etc. I'm not asking for release dates or anything - I know that's impractical. It would however be nice to have some newsletter/video/etc talking about these systems, and a rough idea of how far along the development cycle each one currently is, or which ones we could expect to see sooner, and which ones are still years away. Thanks for consideration DZ

There is lots of AAA flightsim goodness in DCS. Like many others here, I've been into flightsims for over 30 years and some of what we get in DCS is in the "best-ever" category. And while it is an expensive hobby to be sure, there is also nothing else like it. And when you figure out the flight time vs. money aspect, it's not that bad at all. My total cost vs time flown amounts to well less than $1 an hour. For cutting edge flightsim high-tech goodness, I'm happy to pay that.

Yeah, people pay for the modules and expect quality and products that are working and free of bugs, outrageous! With this mentality, we're all doomed!

Текстуры земли похожи на обычное шерстяное одеяло небрежно постеленное на диване.Может когда то и улучшится (сомневаюсь).В таком виде как сейчас,даже бесплатно не ставил бы.

I don't agree. With the likes of ORBX getting involved and Heatblur putting out ground breaking modules, things look pretty good. What is missing, I think, is some kind of goal that can be clearly defined. Even as a sandbox flightsim, there should be some kind of goal, some kind of end result that can be both expressed and understood and give the buyer something to kind of lean on. The civvy sim has that. The goal, whether actually attainable or not, is clearly expressed and easy to understand: "We'll give you the whole world and every plane that exists." Well... okay, good luck with that. But there it is. I really think it's a communication problem. If we're to wait months and years for things we pay for you be delivered in full, it would be good to have something more concrete to lean on as opposed to an ever growing list of "Buy now, wait months, wait years. Wash, rinse, repeat", with no end in sight, so to speak. As stated, it's a bit too much in the wind. Part of the story just seems to be missing.

So do you consider map releases successful that see almost no use in MP? At that point that map is not just unappealing to a subset of players, but the evidence suggests that the map is not usable for an entire game mode of DCS. I would suggest that such a situation, with many players remarking that buying maps gives very little return on what they cost, might require a bit of a rethink. Yes, but making lots of products that stay in early access for a very long time, or have serious issues after release, is also a shame. At the end of the day, you can't do everything and choices have to be made between different alternatives that all have their pros and cons. In this thread a lot of people are making suggestions that some choices should perhaps be made differently. And spreading yourselves thin doesn't necessarily mean that you deliver more, since there is a cost to getting back into something you set aside for a while, and for keeping track of a lot of half-finished projects. I assume you mean B2B, because the consumer gaming market is also professional, as most of those gamers do pay you.

Polychop-Simulations **Upcoming Patch for DCS: OH-58D Kiowa Warrior - Sound Overhaul & More!** Dear Kiowa Warrior community, We’re excited to share details about our next update for the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior module, addressing key feedback from our dedicated users. Since the module’s release in June, we’ve been hard at work on a comprehensive patch that includes an overhaul of our input system, extensive bug fixes, and a sound update you won’t want to miss! ***Unfortunately, this patch won’t be in the immediate DCS World update due to the timing of our final testing. We’re targeting the next update to ensure a smooth release.*** **Echo 19 Sound Overhaul** We’ve partnered with Echo 19 Audio Production to bring a complete sound overhaul to the Kiowa Warrior. This update introduces meticulously captured audio from Bell 407GXP flights, enhancing rotor, turbine, blade slap, M3P weapon sounds, and even intricate cockpit switch and linkage sounds. Echo 19’s industry expertise ensures a more immersive auditory experience, capturing the authentic atmosphere of this iconic helicopter. Echo 19 supplied a first "look" of the overhaul earlier this month, check out the YouTube video here if you haven't already: https://youtu.be/uum3534IcD0 **Why the Delay?** Our new input system required significant engineering time. The update not only simplifies keybinds for both pilot and co-pilot positions, but it also adds many more keybindings to cater to various hardware setups, including those for pit builders. This reduction in repetitive code allows for more intuitive control mappings. However, given that input updates often affect all current keybinds, we’re taking extra care to test each change. By refining this input system now, we hope to avoid future disruptions. **What’s Included?** - **Feature-level changes:** - Improved damage modeling - Performance improvements - Input fixes and additions - Echo 19 Sound Overhaul - **Bug fixes:** - Fixed IDM not displaying wingmen as recipients - Can no longer store positions from IDM messages when no positions selected to be stored (CTD fix) - Fixed CTD on receiving BDA with Air Mission EOM - Fixed LMC trying to stabilize with 0 range - Vox (used for SRS intercom volume in game) now starts at 75% - Airbag circuit breaker now starts OUT - Fixes for DTC loading waypoints/control points/target points - Fixed L2MUM page bug when using WPN/ASE switch - Fixed SA symbology being visible in HSD - Fixed ODA display to Direct Point - Fixed display conditions for NVGs, Visor and Mask - Collective clickables no longer accessible when collective is hidden - CI state now syncs correctly on join - Various fixes for MMS, LMC, Laser and MFD states on join in progress - Disabled MMS resolution changes until render issue can be resolved by ED - Hellfire VSD page displays manual laser codes correctly - Radios correctly named in ME - Fixed airbags not synced for the rest of clients - Implemented fixed MIL-2525 symbol (thanks ED!) - CPG Sparse VSD L1 laser readout behaviour fixed - RTE SEQ now default on for cold start - AI now has some hover instability - Added editor option for allowing PDU show/hide when installed (defaults to ON) - Adjusted hover attitude and fixed roll reference indicator offset - Fixed armour doors in multicrew - MMS diagonal slewing improvements for both axis and button inputs - Fixed input behaviour for radio frequencies - Fixed incorrect DTC loading behaviour - Fixed heading hold/force trim conflict Thank you for your patience and continued support. We’re thrilled to bring these improvements to the Kiowa Warrior, and we look forward to delivering a refined experience in the coming DCS update. **Polychop Simulations**

**Upcoming Patch for DCS: OH-58D Kiowa Warrior - Sound Overhaul & More!** Dear Kiowa Warrior community, We’re excited to share details about our next update for the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior module, addressing key feedback from our dedicated users. Since the module’s release in June, we’ve been hard at work on a comprehensive patch that includes an overhaul of our input system, extensive bug fixes, and a sound update you won’t want to miss! ***Unfortunately, this patch won’t be in the immediate DCS World update due to the timing of our final testing. We’re targeting the next update to ensure a smooth release.*** **Echo 19 Sound Overhaul** We’ve partnered with Echo 19 Audio Production to bring a complete sound overhaul to the Kiowa Warrior. This update introduces meticulously captured audio from Bell 407GXP flights, enhancing rotor, turbine, blade slap, M3P weapon sounds, and even intricate cockpit switch and linkage sounds. Echo 19’s industry expertise ensures a more immersive auditory experience, capturing the authentic atmosphere of this iconic helicopter. Echo 19 supplied a first "look" of the overhaul earlier this month, check out the YouTube video here if you haven't already: https://youtu.be/uum3534IcD0 **Why the Delay?** Our new input system required significant engineering time. The update not only simplifies keybinds for both pilot and co-pilot positions, but it also adds many more keybindings to cater to various hardware setups, including those for pit builders. This reduction in repetitive code allows for more intuitive control mappings. However, given that input updates often affect all current keybinds, we’re taking extra care to test each change. By refining this input system now, we hope to avoid future disruptions. **What’s Included?** - **Feature-level changes:** - Improved damage modeling - Performance improvements - Input fixes and additions - Echo 19 Sound Overhaul - **Bug fixes:** - Fixed IDM not displaying wingmen as recipients - Can no longer store positions from IDM messages when no positions selected to be stored (CTD fix) - Fixed CTD on receiving BDA with Air Mission EOM - Fixed LMC trying to stabilize with 0 range - Vox (used for SRS intercom volume in game) now starts at 75% - Airbag circuit breaker now starts OUT - Fixes for DTC loading waypoints/control points/target points - Fixed L2MUM page bug when using WPN/ASE switch - Fixed SA symbology being visible in HSD - Fixed ODA display to Direct Point - Fixed display conditions for NVGs, Visor and Mask - Collective clickables no longer accessible when collective is hidden - CI state now syncs correctly on join - Various fixes for MMS, LMC, Laser and MFD states on join in progress - Disabled MMS resolution changes until render issue can be resolved by ED - Hellfire VSD page displays manual laser codes correctly - Radios correctly named in ME - Fixed airbags not synced for the rest of clients - Implemented fixed MIL-2525 symbol (thanks ED!) - CPG Sparse VSD L1 laser readout behaviour fixed - RTE SEQ now default on for cold start - AI now has some hover instability - Added editor option for allowing PDU show/hide when installed (defaults to ON) - Adjusted hover attitude and fixed roll reference indicator offset - Fixed armour doors in multicrew - MMS diagonal slewing improvements for both axis and button inputs - Fixed input behaviour for radio frequencies - Fixed incorrect DTC loading behaviour - Fixed heading hold/force trim conflict Thank you for your patience and continued support. We’re thrilled to bring these improvements to the Kiowa Warrior, and we look forward to delivering a refined experience in the coming DCS update. **Polychop Simulations**

Excellent post. I agree on all points. The inconsistent level of fidelity as to how aircraft are modeled (since every plane must reinvent every wheel), as well as the lack of any coherency in the planeset since the "departure" of Belsimtek, has had far reaching consequences on what missions can be created and designed, particularly in a MP context. E.g. it's really incredible that DCS is the first flight sim (AFAIK) to be able to create missions set during the Falklands War, but totally lacks the assets or flyable aircraft necessary to make it even remotely accurate. The only thing I have to add is that I do think for a majority of DCS players, dropping guided bombs on Toyotas from 20k feet is peak gameplay, and that's who I think ED is appealing to with recent map releases, especially the Iraq one. Unfortunately, the players who are about a wider variety of older aircraft with peer opponents seem to be a vocal minority.

Most of the points have been talked about for years, and many of them have sounded as if we where close for them to be implementet. At least these bullet points has been talked about for serveral years, but still the answers are... Air Traffic Control -> ATC is something for the future. Vulkan Implementation -> Vulkan is in progress, no ETA to share yet. Dynamic Campaign Engine -> Dynamic campaign is a huge task. (probably meaning that we should not expect something the next comming year(s)). Data Transfer Cartridge -> DTC is in progress for the core of DCS, I hope we can share news soon. (I guess most want to hear news about this). I think many DCS players has come to a point where they rather want to see products being finished. Some moudules has now been in EA for 3-7 Years. On top of this core bugs and issues that has been out for a very long time seems more or less unattended (at least from a customers point of view) It is not because I find DCS to be bad, otherwise I would not spend so much time with it, but the backlog of unfinished items seems to be growing. So at some point You must consider if You want to put more money into new modules that will remain unfinished for the next comming years, or rather want to wait and se if developement catches up with investments You made years ago. I do know that DCS is in a special niche market. Flightsims cannot be compared to AAA games, but are mostly meant to be enhanced and progessly improved over a long time due to their complexity, but honestly patience also comes with a certain limit. Some modules has been in EA for up to 5 years - is that reasonable ? - I'm just asking.

It feels like there's no ambition left over at ED. No direction or vision. Set in their ways. The business seems so compartmentalised that it's probably impossible to get everyone to have a shared vision. Everyone is just doing their own little thing and doing just enough to not fall off of the gravy train. This pretty much stems from the top and I paraphrase a quote "DCS isn't a profitable business". I wish I could be more optimistic and hope DCS picks up again in the future if not for the sake of the 3rd party developers.

First of all, there are two separate items in this thread, one related to the other, but not the same. One has to do with how the INS+GPS system works using the Kalman filter. Another is the information IDMs receive from the MMC and the ability of the ammunition to self-correct, which is not really related to the F-16C INS. Neither are "bugs", one is a possible deviation on the Kalman filter logics and we're testing the data and will update the logics if needed. The other is a feature not yet available in IDM weapons we're working to implement in the near future.

I haven't posted since the last patch. Currently, DCS is the perfect production for me. It is obvious that satisfied players do not participate much on the forum. I see everyone with 30nm. On Cold War servers, I can shoot 4~5 blind pilots in one flight. It's an amazing feeling how they keep falling and falling. As for better enemy detection, I recommend setting all possible graphic options to minimum. This gives you the opportunity to observe your opponent from an even further distance. We can also turn off trees and buildings. This is a very nice option, especially in PvP servers... additionally, in the most realistic military simulator for civilians. This gives an incredible advantage and it is available to everyone :D. At the end of my very wise description of the situation, I recommend the MiG19 plane! The plane can take off and land on any surface available in the game. Additionally, he returns wonderfully to the base without a wing and in flames ps. The dots sometimes cover the plane when I'm close to it. This is a bit problematic when identifying an opponent. But it's good that we have a text radar on "Enigma" Have a nice day Greetings to the Blue Enigma paratroopers

We have made a request to the team to take a look at this setting. thank you

This video game and the company that invented it are basically dying. Its sad. But it’s evolution, and DCS isn’t evolving. You look at all of the half baked modules that are in “early development” and see how they rarely ever leave that phase and yet they keep putting out more. I’ve had enjoyable times with this “game” because that is what it is. It is not a simulator. I wish ED success but at this time I have uninstalled it and maybe someday I’ll revisit again. It’s never ending updates that cause issues, etc. why does it take ED longer to build a video game supercarrier than Newport news can build a real supercarrier? Nevermind all of the other things they say are in the works, and “it takes time.” Spent a decent portion of one of my paychecks on modules, but it lost that loving feeling, Mav. im sure the moderators will be flustered but I don’t even care. Hats off to you people for carrying the water for DCS. Hope they pay you well, or whatever. Maybe they only charge you quarter price for these never ending modules in developement. Wish you all luck and hopefully your “passion” doesn’t fade! I do enjoy reading the forums. Maybe I’ll read them again next year, I dunno

For the most part I'm very happy with DCS. I am very happy to have access to a buffet of well made high-tech planes and choppers to fly and several really good maps to enjoy. Not to mention all the tech-goodies sprinkled about here and there. And the excellent free-trial system which s great! That said... Putting out the Iraq map on pre-order prior to the Afghan map getting significantly more love does legitimately raise a few eyebrows. How many jigsaw puzzle maps with months-to-come and perhaps years-to-come pieces are we going to have at once? And the "it's separate teams" doesn't mean much to me. I'm not paying separate teams - I'm paying one company. Maybe it's more a lack of clear communication and relatable goals than an actual flaw in how the maps are put out. As it is: Here's a map and the pieces of will come out separately in several months and there may be delays and... and... And here's another map and pieces of will come out separately in several months and there may be delays and... and... And here's another map and pieces of will come out separately in several months and there may be delays and... and... it's a bit too much in the wind. Maybe something more concrete would help. But I'm still very supportive of the sim, it's at least 90% of my flightsim time and dollars spent, has been for years. But communication on the part of ED hasn't always been great. I think that's a fair thing to say.

I would like info on the new General Flight Model that, was shown 2-3 years ago and then never again. Fragmentation simulation would be nice too. Secondary explosions based on unit type (ammo, fuel, explosives) Mk20/Napalm for the F18, so other modules can get Napalm (F4, F5, upcoming A6, A7, Corsair)

For me the biggest wish for the 2025 and beyond would be to update on all items still in the 'beyond' phase of videos 2021 ... 2022 ... 2023 ... 2024

Since you mention the price, Id like to remind you about two things: - You purchased an early access product. Experience can thus be rough for a minority of users. Id wish it wouldnt be like that, but thats how development goes. - We have a no-questions-asked refund policy. So if you cant get the issue resolved, you can just refund, get your money back and perhaps try again in a few years or once the product is out of EA Fingers crossed on getting these nasty issues resolved [emoji106]

Aaah, my dream...

Did you planed to make Nona-SVK (BTR based mortar) ? Russia's pack have a lack of wheeled artillery ^^

1) Well, the mig23 was doable for 3rd parties, and the SU-17 is also "maybe" being done by 3rd parties. Frankly I don't care who develops it as long as its good. For ww2 tho, its generally less of a problem but its head scratching why the decision to not have a coherent plane set exists. 2) I expect the 29 to have a nice clicky pit, and hopefully the old school soviet era nav system and Lazur datalink (a core feature would be interesting AI wise), its not 100% clear what exactly you are doing with (if its gonna be a export polish/german one, it might be neat to also have an option for a garmin duct taped to the hud). But ultimately where I will grade you, and alot of other people will grade you will be the Radar and EO/IRST which are very very well known in terms of technical parameters. If the EO sees through clouds for example, well game over. Similarly, the radar had various problems locking stuff in LD/SD situations due to the inadequate processor. I honestly hope you guys can do a good job on it but your track record with sensors to date is frankly poor relative to what 3rd party devs have been able to do. I understand you guys have a mig29 pilot or two on hand to help out with the finer points of what the "limitations" of the sensor systems were and what circumstances they should have problems with. Fundamentally I think you guys really need to evaluate core gameplay loops when thinking about modules. I.e. The whole chinook troop/logi thing from what I understand/hear from others is that its still a pretty big mess. But that was a "good" idea, just needs to be implemented better (And transferred to the other cargo helos). For the kiowa/gaz for example, a good gameplay loop to add to the game would have been some sort of additional "scout helo" gameplay. I.e. rather than just making it a poor mans apache it would have been good to have the kiowa be able to direct AI/player airstrikes by other units, or even call in artillery. That would have significantly enhanced the value proposition of the module. For various fast jets, well, the big thing is the air to ground or air to air "experience", and that needs work frankly as I noted above. And obviously for good MP you need some sort unit "balance" which well, finally was getting there and in lets say January I was excited about DCS. But then the 3rd party problems have really soured me on DCS.

I won't answer whether this is satire or a true position. I'm curious why you direct your anger and frustration at people who use the capabilities of dcs and not at its creators for allowing such a thing. Thank you for recommending great titles to play. I know most of them and they have similar problems as dcs (arma3). We have what we have, there is no better simulation. IL2 Korea will be released, so I will give the blue F4 pilots some peace ps. I always use exploit autostart to start the plane!

Why? The point being it should already be in the sim without any scripting required, like in that other sim we love to mention. Making this mission specific makes no sense at all. I repeat. Watch the video @Northstar98 linked, and you'll get a clearer picture of how this should work. Open your DCS.log and look at all the "missing taxiways" errors that are thrown constantly whenever starting a mission on every map. No wonder why the AI is confused and everything gets constipated.

Well, I started playing DCS seven years ago, so you don't have to tell me that, and I read changelogs. And I also don't have to tell you that while some bugs get fixed, new ones are introduced. And sometimes it takes years to fix a bug. And yes, I know "it's a huge task", but we've got what we've got. And I'm not blaming you for this state of affairs, just stating the facts.

DCS is healthy and will continue to grow all I see is AAA game player mentality trying to creep into the DCS world with there demands.

That's not true actually. You can even change it in real time while in the cockpit and see the amount of grass increase or decrease. (Well, maybe it's different from map to map)

this issue has been fixed internally and will be in the next patch hopefully

Perfect, thank you for the mission. Can confirm its fixed The fix will be in the update after the upcoming, cheers.

Really? LOL - If nothing else, it's evolved from being a showcase for Russian aircraft into being one for US aircraft. I remember when ED decided to start the flaming cliffs franchise - hordes of users said that it was a betrayal of their investment in the Ubisoft/LO software, that it would never fly ( ) as a franchise, that they would never purchase any of E.D.'s products and that everything E.D. touched would turn to dust (at least a few of those people became very prominent members of the DCS online community). Same with Black Shark. Ditto A-10 Ditto combining the existing modules into a single DCS .exe etc. etc. There was a special section of a popular forum that was pretty much just dedicated to people venting about E.D.'s relationship with the devil (still running, just the complainers gave up posting) For 20 years people have been getting the hump about something (pick anything) and saying this sim is about to die. & yet there's now a thriving community of 3rd party developers & content creators making a living off it where none existed before. There are some things that have taken a ridiculously long time to address (like the external model clipping into the cockpit in the Su-25 around the canopy frame or the bugged pitot tube info to nav system modelling & incorrect hints on the Mi-24 burst length selector) & some business decisions that seem baffling, but you couldn't have made the campaigns that are available now with the functionality of the sim a few years back. It's frustrating that things don't get fixed - or evolve - as fast as certainly I'd like to see happen, but to say things are going backwards is to deny reality.

I don't remember him asking if he could speak for me... Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.

Upcoming Patch for DCS: OH-58D Kiowa Warrior - Sound Overhaul & More! We’re excited to share details about our next update for the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior module, addressing key feedback from our dedicated users. Since the module’s release in June, we’ve been hard at work on a comprehensive patch that includes an overhaul of our input system, extensive bug fixes, and a sound update you won’t want to miss! Unfortunately, this patch won’t be in the immediate DCS World update due to the timing of our final testing. We’re targeting the next update to ensure a smooth release. Echo 19 Sound Overhaul We’ve partnered with Echo 19 Audio Production to bring a complete sound overhaul to the Kiowa Warrior. This update introduces meticulously captured audio from Bell 407GXP flights, enhancing rotor, turbine, blade slap, M3P weapon sounds, and even intricate cockpit switch and linkage sounds. Echo 19’s industry expertise ensures a more immersive auditory experience, capturing the authentic atmosphere of this iconic helicopter. Echo 19 supplied a first "look" of the overhaul earlier this month, check out the YouTube video here if you haven't already: https://youtu.be/uum3534IcD0 Why the Delay? Our new input system required significant engineering time. The update not only simplifies keybinds for both pilot and co-pilot positions, but it also adds many more keybindings to cater to various hardware setups, including those for pit builders. This reduction in repetitive code allows for more intuitive control mappings. However, given that input updates often affect all current keybinds, we’re taking extra care to test each change. By refining this input system now, we hope to avoid future disruptions. What’s Included? Feature-level changes: Improved damage modeling Performance improvements Input fixes and additions Echo 19 Sound Overhaul Bug fixes: Fixed IDM not displaying wingmen as recipients Can no longer store positions from IDM messages when no positions selected to be stored (CTD fix) Fixed CTD on receiving BDA with Air Mission EOM Fixed LMC trying to stabilize with 0 range Vox (used for SRS intercom volume in game) now starts at 75% Airbag circuit breaker now starts OUT Fixes for DTC loading waypoints/control points/target points Fixed L2MUM page bug when using WPN/ASE switch Fixed SA symbology being visible in HSD Fixed ODA display to Direct Point Fixed display conditions for NVGs, Visor and Mask Collective clickables no longer accessible when collective is hidden CI state now syncs correctly on join Various fixes for MMS, LMC, Laser and MFD states on join in progress Disabled MMS resolution changes until render issue can be resolved by ED Hellfire VSD page displays manual laser codes correctly Radios correctly named in ME Fixed airbags not synced for the rest of clients Implemented fixed MIL-2525 symbol (thanks ED!) CPG Sparse VSD L1 laser readout behaviour fixed RTE SEQ now default on for cold start AI now has some hover instability Added editor option for allowing PDU show/hide when installed (defaults to ON) Adjusted hover attitude and fixed roll reference indicator offset Fixed armour doors in multicrew MMS diagonal slewing improvements for both axis and button inputs Fixed input behaviour for radio frequencies Fixed incorrect DTC loading behaviour Fixed heading hold/force trim conflict Bye Phant

BN, I get you're speaking on behalf of your company but be real here, you must admit DCS has issues. You can claim your company works as hard as they can but no amount of effort can offset the bad decisions your company has made and are still making. Of course, I'm sure everyone at ED is working hard to pump out the next EA product but you gotta read the room, look at the comments in the recent Iraq pre-order video, look at the comments in this thread, look at the community posts on various forums. Will you just actually properly finish your early access products before pushing out more? Will you actually make the core DCS experience better ? Suddenly no one at your company is up for these tasks. All your main modules, be it the ah64, the f16, the fa18 and especially the suppercarrier saw their updates come out at an agonizingly slow pace sometime after their initial release, as an example, take the a10cII, I remember how you all took more than a whole year to add the radio. And don't even get me started on your older or more niche modules like combined arms or the mosquito. What about the core dcs experience ? You have been teasing dynamic campaign for a few years, nothing to show for it still. Ground ai is broken. ATC is pretty much non existent. There is little single player content available except for paid campaigns that get broken every patch because of the horrendous ai. Ohh yes, there are also the missions made by the community which carry the single player experience in my opinion. How do you reward these mission makers ? By leaving them with your mission editor from the nineties that hasn't even got drag select or an undo redo button because that would be "wasting thousands of man hours" to implement a undo/redo button or drag select in a 2024 simulator. Don't get me started on the feud with RB because I know you'll want to ban me for even mentioning the name. I am commenting as a customer who has paid more than 500$ on your platform, I do care about your product, really. But please, don't try to make us look like we are whining babies that can't comprehend the work you put in. At the end of the day, we are left with the product you present to us and given some of it's core and module features have remained broken, outdated or unfinished/missing for years while you manage to release new EA modules back to back, well, excuse us for not being very satisfied or having doubts about your product and the direction it is heading towards.

MOHO - Make OH-6A Official!

I want to clarify, this post is not intended for the community managers, NineLine or Bignewy, but rather is targeted at ED Management. This post is not specifically about the bugs in modules or items listed below. But is intended to show a lack of care from Eagle Dynamics Management toward the community that purchases their modules. Eagle Dynamics Management, do you truly care for your customer's who have spent money on your products? If so, PLEASE SHOW IT. There are a number of issues to the CORE of DCS that have not been realized, and even more so have shown no progress in years. There are countless items that could be listed, but some of the larger items that affect DCS in a larger view than just one module are provided. 1. Dynamic Campaign nullAbove is a post from an Eagle Dynamics Team Member on January 17,2019. Stating in regards to the dynamic campaign "This is a very high-priority item for us with good progress. However, this is a highly complex undertaking and it will take time, but certainly not "5 years"." As of today, this post is 5 years, 9 months, and 11 days old. And there has been no progress on the DCS Dynamic Campaign. I'm sorry, newsletters with screenshots and saying "we are working on it" and "its a complex task" do not make up for 5 years and 9 months worth of development. Show some sort of progress. Show a video of a developer troubleshooting it, show a video of the buggy version you are trying to debug, show some sort of actual progress to show it has been actually worked on. Showing screenshots of the F10 map and writing a paragraph about how hard and complex it is, is not progress. Does Eagle Dynamics have anything to show it has actually been worked on other than just words at this point? 2. ATC Above is a post from an Eagle Dynamics Team Member on February 9, 2016 discussing that ATC does not currently work and that it "Will resolved with new ATC system". Again, similar points to the Dynamic Campaign. Where has there been any progress shown on ATC? It has been 8 years, 8 months, and 19 days since this post was made, and what progress does Eagle Dynamics show? Newsletters claiming it is being worked on, and is a complex task, again, do not cut it. Show something that shows some sort of actual progress. If it is buggy and doesn't work flawlessly? At least show us that something has been done in the last 8 years, 8 months, and 19 days. 3. Supercarrier Above is a post from an Eagle Dynamics Team Member on April 1, 2020 discussing what features are to come with the Super Carrier Module. There are a number of these items that have not been worked on since this post in April 1, 2020. Ready Room, Interactive LSO Controls, Plane directors, Rendered hanger deck, Emergency barrier net, Deck crew that move to avoid collisions with aircraft, where is the progress on these items? Plane directors and barrier net have been talked about in forum posts and newsletters, but there is nothing Eagle Dynamics can show for progress on these items. The issue with COMMS with the Supercarrier can also be included, as they do not work, but this ties into the point above about ATC. The ATC issue is a core issue that affects ALL modules. When a user purchases a module in early access the intent is that that money is used to further the development of that module and the core game that it lives in. I do not understand how Eagle Dynamics can state that modules are "Out of Early Access" when they cannot even properly communicate with ATC. That is a core element of flight simulation. As far as the supercarrier module, users that are purchasing this module in specific deserve to have their funds paid for Early Access actually go toward development of this module. And where has any progress on the Supercarrier been? Again, actual progress, not words in a newsletter describing how challenging the process is. Finally, the community managers communicate that they "...listen to lots of feedback constantly and pass it on to the team...". Please show the users that Eagle Dynamics Management actually listens to the community. Eagle Dynamics as a company has a history of continuing to send out new modules to sell without finishing old modules. For instance, releasing FC2024 when numerous bug existing in the FC3 planes. Releasing a pre-order for Iraq while Afghanistan still has not received an update since it's release. In the forum post for Afghanistan it is stated plainly "Regions will be release in approximately three-month intervals". Now, we are only told that these regions will be delayed in the forum of a newly released pre-order for the IRAQ map. And this was only after users complained that Eagle Dynamics is pushing new content without providing any updates on previous modules. Eagle Dynamics Management, you are losing the faith in your customer's. People have paid money for you modules, both early access modules and out of Early Access Modules, that do not work within the game, and yet you continue to push only new content without showing any actual progress on the promises you have made the community. I'm sorry, but Newsletters describing how hard something is doesn't show progress. Show us something, that these items are actually being worked on in some way. Have the developers actually share what they are working on, not just having Community Managers state they have talked to the teams. Again, this is not to hate on the community managers, this is to ask Eagle Dynamics Management to do something to show the community you actually care about following through with your promises. Eagle Dynamics Management, I ask that you actually listen to your customers. And show us that you care.

I don't want to make this all about spotting dots but I get that it's been bumpy trying to get something viable. Labels are a cheat, and I don't mean that in a bad way, but they just are and there is nothing wrong with using them. Spotting dots are an aid to limitations in certain rendering conditions where the pixels for whatever reason do not show or appear as expected or as desired. They shouldn't make it easier in general but should make spotting more of what you expect from an aircraft at distance. At higher resolutions for example the pixels of an aircraft could vanish when they shouldn't. This is the issue though, you need to make something that isn't like labels but appears equally under all conditions, settings and with all different hardware. Spotting dots should look like nothing is turned on, if that makes sense. It's an equalizer between all users with or without it turned on, VR or 2D, 2k, 4k, etc. It's a challenge.

Guys, once again we only remove posts if they break the rules, we do not remove posts because they are negative, frustrated or unhappy with DCS. This can be seen by a simple search in the forums. Programmers do not get removed or leave a module in the middle of their work, rather sometimes their work is long and complex. For example, currently, we have someone working on the Sniper pod for the F-16C. He has not been removed and only stops for vacation. He has literally been working on this pod for months. Now before you say, oh he must be a bad programmer or slow. No this involves all aspects of creating an item in DCS, from researching, designing, and implementing. Sadly it takes a lot of time. Same with radar improvements, we may say we are improving a radar, and then go quiet for some time. That is them work away. We have hired people so we don't have to remove someone mid-project because it would be very tough to drop something in the middle and move to something else. I will also note, from the video. I get that everyone is eager for the Dynamic Campaign. It's a monumental undertaking. For example, way back when Falcon 4's Dynamic Campaign took over 5 years to do. They only had one flyable aircraft to deal with, and 1 era. This DC release has to be whatever one expects, and beyond. Even Falcon 4's campaign while good for its time wouldn't cut it if we just copied and pasted it into DCS (not that that is even possible) And before you say, oh he doesn't know, I have been flying simulations since the early days, I bought a computer for Falcon. It has to meet or more so exceed expectations now, and some of those expectations are immense and well beyond what has been seen. Our internal expectations have to be met as we know you want nothing but an exceptional experience with it. Some good points are made in the video, but some I am not sure I agree with. For example his dismissal of Bomb Fuses. They do do something in DCS and were very much needed. Anyways, I just wanted to answer a couple of points here. If there is something else from the video you want me to expand on, I will do my best. Once again, if you keep your posts within the very VERY simple frame work of the forum rules, your posts do not get removed. Thanks!

While I do get some of the frustrations, one has to also admit that the DCS community is very hard to please. I mean, since DCS World's existence, everybody is constantly asking for new features, new modules, new eye candy, etc. Some complain about their favorite module being incomplete and they're angry that new modules are released. While they do not realize that others may have been wishing for that new module just as long. For instance; I couldn't care less about any of the ww2 modules, but you won't hear me complain that ED and 3rd parties are working on it, while work on my favorite modules is not complete yet. I totally get that many want to see products finished first, before adding more, but personally I don't mind that ED and it's partners are pumping out content. Even if half finished. As an example; I rather see new content added that I'm interested in in early/crude state (like the new clouds we got a few years ago), than having to wait for some module I'm not interested in to get finished. I just wanted to share my view on things. No offence or disrespect meant to anyone of course. In the end, we all want the same: "that perfect mil flight sim"